Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf

Citation: Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/897239.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,714 chars

which airports are located may not charge license fees or occupation taxes, the

legislature implied that there are matters that municipalities can regulate. Since the

statute is unclear regarding what exactly the legislature intended to grant the Port of

Seattle "exclusive jurisdiction and control" over, we find the statute ambiguous.

Our task, then, is to determine the legislature's intent. Jacobs, 154 Wn.2d at

600. The city of SeaTac contends that the legislature intended to give the Port of

Seattle jurisdiction over only airport operations, whereas the Port of Seattle contends

that the legislature intended to prohibit any city of SeaTac law or regulation from

applying at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. As described below, we reject

the Port of Seattle's interpretation because we find it, among other things,

incompatible with a special purpose district's limited powers.

Unlike cities, which are granted "the broadest powers of local self-

government," RCW 35A.01.010, a port district is a special purpose district, which "is

limited in its powers to those necessarily or fairly implied in or incident to the powers

expressly granted, and also those essential to the declared objects and purposes of the

corporation." Port of Seattle v. Wash. Utils. & Transp. Comm 'n, 92 Wn.2d 789, 794-

95,597 P.2d 383 (1979).

The legislature granted powers to municipalities that establish or acquire

airports in RCW 14.08.120. Among these powers is the power "[t]o adopt and amend

13
             
Fila Foods, LLC v. City of SeaTac
89723-9

all needed rules, regulations, and ordinances for the management, government, and